LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued

On July 28, 2011, the law firm of McCuneWright, LLP, on behalf of Dr. Jeffry Kaatz, Dr. James Beach, and Dr. Gary Bradley, filed a complaint against all responsible parties as a result of actions taken against them and La Sierra University in a June 10, 2011 meeting, in which these three long-time and dedicated employees were forced to sign resignation letters.

Richard McCune, the attorney for the three plaintiffs, said his clients are worried that the forced resignations are “not only hurting them personally but harming the university they have devoted their lives to.”

The ironic thing about this statement is that LSU is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.Â If these men are so concerned about any harm that may come to LSU, why then are they suing LSU itself?

It seems also like Dr. Gary Bradley, one of the plaintiffs in this case, changed his mind about how to proceed:

Bradley, the biology adjunct, said in his e-mail that he was devastated by the turn of events that has led to his resignation, though he gave no explicit indication that he plans to fight the termination on legal grounds. â€œIâ€™m not ready to quitâ€¦. I have many important projects underway here now and many other people will be inconvenienced by my sudden departure,â€ he wrote.

â€œIf you are among those who welcome this transition, I request that you celebrate with dignity,â€ Bradley added. â€œIf you are among those who find this transition upsetting, I ask that you not turn it into a war.â€

218 thoughts on “LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued”

Comment navigation

If this case goes to trial or after it is settled, will we be able to discuss the actual tape recording and what was on it? I can’t wait to see how church members over the world react to what was said, no matter what the legal settlement is.

And this is why the church is reticent to take any action in defense of the church and its stated beliefs against defectors or detractors.

Civil law defends the individual in almost every case against the “statis quo”. Whether it is religion or civil issues.

This is the nature of socialism when it wants to subject every power or influence and bring it under the control of the government. All in the name of defending the individual. When in fact, it is for the purpose of total subjection of all powers.

If the faculty were teaching theistic evolution then they should have been fired. If they were not, then the chairman of the board screwed up big time. This is a big, very unfortunate mess. I hope no one is celebrating this.

Those three guys seem to not know when to throw away the shovel when trying to dig themselves ever deeper into a hole.

In their own press release they freely admit that the “or else” option that caused them to jump at the chance to resign – was the threat that what they tape of their own conversation would unmask them and they would be seen for what they really are doing behind closed doors. The text of their own press release makes it clear that fear of having others find out what they were really like when scheming behind closed doors was “sufficient” for them to choose resignation rather than exposure.

Then having little or no control over the tape that they released to family and friends – they found that the result was both exposure AND resignation. At this point they apparently feel they have nothing to lose by telling the world about their activities.

Oh well…

In the mean time we should continue to pray for our Church leadership. One thing that is validated here – is the fact that at least some people considere these people who committed a darwin-award style self-removal from LSU to includ “Three of the most important and beloved leaders” leading the charge at LSU for the kind of bad ideas they expressed on the tape.

Until that point – I did not realize just how key these 4 guys were to that whole agenda.

Let’s see what the Lord will allow to unfold. These men voluntarily resigned instead of facing the consequences of their bad conduct. Who knows what the consequences would have been? And should there not have been consequences for bad conduct? It is interesting to see that these men were willing to go to court! What does that say for the rest of us who may have been badly treated?

True. If indeed it was an act of God that brought about the unwitting self-disclosure of these men, then God can also direct a favorable outcome. The lesson is to be careful who we hire to do God’s work.

Are not all professors, faculty and admn. staff SDA church members? I suppose anyone who teaches any form of evolution has no qualms concerning violating some other “selected” Bible concepts that they don’t accept. Once again, the church takes it on the chin;

1Co 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
1Co 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
1Co 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
1Co 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
1Co 6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
1Co 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
1Co 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

So typical of liberals. Caught red handed so they lash out rather than accept the blame for what they did. And this is will cost MY CHURCH big money in the process. Talk about intimidation (as in the court document). Doesn’t this intimidate the church into not firing anymore of these fools even though they should have long ago?

Linda Hoover: What a revelation of attitudes! I canâ€™t see Jesus suing anyone for His rights! But then, does the liberal mind think it unrealistic to take Jesusâ€™ example seriously?

Did’nt the women employees of the church at one time sue the church for equal pay? The church was being unfair, sexist and highly immoral in its treatment of women. Did their lawsuit upset you too?

From what I read of the lawsuit (I read the whole thing this evening) the church employees acted at best immorally and at worst illegally as well. Why should a church be above the law? I think our church and its leadership should be model citizens when it comes to complying with civil law.

Greg: The church was being unfair, sexist and highly immoral in its treatment of women

Not to mention illegal.

I think we need to support our church leadership but get the feeling we goaded them into actions that were unreasonable and very unfortunate. The newspaper article that was linked to should be a great embarrassment to the church. It certainly is to me. If this website contributed to the pressure on our leaders then we should probably rethink what we write.

Friends, God is not mocked. His advice is not to go to court in cases like this; and especially when they precipitated the firing by choice. They could have admitted error and pleaded mercy; they did not. There are some cases where the courts are beyond our control. This was not. While they do cause God’s name to ‘stink,’ it is not the first time that this has happened to God. He is well able to take care of himself. The consequences fall back on us and our mission to reach others for the kingdom.

Greg:
From what I read of the lawsuit (I read the whole thing this evening) the church employees acted at best immorally and at worst illegally as well.

The thing is, you can’t just go by what a lawsuit says. There are reasons why so many people think that “honest lawyer” is an oxymoron.

Take a look at 18 U.S.C. Â§ 2511 and see if you can find where it says that Graham or Blackmer or Jackson did anything illegal, as the lawsuit claims. In particular note Â¶ 2(d) where it says:

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person … to intercept a[n] … oral … communication where such person is a party to the communication … unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act ….

Did Lenny Darnell record the conversation for a criminal or tortious purpose? Thus far everyone has said that Lenny didn’t know he had recorded the conversation, and even Â¶ 97 of the lawsuit says that Blackmer was the first person to discover that the conversation had been recorded.

Perhaps you could also help me with CA Penal Code Â§ 632. I can find where it says that you can’t record a conversation without the consent of all parties, which could put Lenny in the hot seat. But I can’t find in that statute where it says that you can’t use or disclose what is thus recorded.

Dale:
So typical of liberals.Caught red handed so they lash out rather than accept the blame for what they did.And this is will cost MY CHURCH big money in the process.Talk about intimidation (as in the court document).Doesnâ€™t this intimidate the church into not firing anymore of these fools even though they should have long ago?

You really shouldn’t generalize that way Dale. Politically, for the most part, I’m a liberal but I’m also a literal 6 day creationist, EGW believing SDA and I take offense at you lumping me in with Bradley, Katz and the other guy. If the LSU board had taken appropriate action years ago when all this began, we wouldn’t be in this situation today, so there’s plenty of blame to go around. The money is God’s and He’s more than capable, if it is His will, of making sure these guys don’t win.

Ron D Henderson: Friends, God is not mocked. His advice is not to go to court in cases like this; and especially when they precipitated the firing by choice. They could have admitted error and pleaded mercy; they did not.

I take it you too favored the church’s onetime mistreatment of women.

I’m troubled by the comments here. This appears to be an issue regarding compliance with civil law. I don’t think any church should be above the law. Not the Catholic Church (whose leaders have molested children), not the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Warren Jeff, the leader, molested children too) or the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I’m not equating the firings to pedophilia, but the laws of the land must be respected.

Greg: You have totally lost the fundamental problem here in your quest to be politically correct.

The church is not at fault here. These guys should be fired for what they were plotting, what they were doing, and what they were saying (as in the language used.) All these things breached their contracts with the church. The church is and should be within its rights to terminate such people. Far from being the dedicated teachers they claim to be, they were undermining church teachings for much of the long time they “served”. May God help see that justice is done.

Faith: Greg: You have totally lost the fundamental problem here in your quest to be politically correct.
The church is not at fault here.

Faith, this is not about political correctness. This is about the law. Plain and simple. Do you not understand the distinction?

If you can’t fire people while abiding by the law of the land, you can’t fire them. If laws were broken, you can’t just say the church is within its rights. Obviously it must be held accountable.

Perhaps we’ll learn yet the church was in the right, but from all appearances the church’s administrators were in the wrong. It looks like a jury may decide this. I am seriously troubled when church members like you defend an institution and individuals breaking the law and say its within their rights to do so. Jesus himself condemned it.

Greg, you are not making sense. How could you conclude that I favour discrimination against women because I say that we should not go to court here?? If we break the law of the land as a church then we are wrong; only when the law of the land goes against God’s laws should we stand for God regardless. How does the LSU law suit justify the law of the land?? Let’s see what will come of the case before we form conclusions. Your references to past faults of the church does not justify this case. Let’s wait and see. In the meanwhile the three men should have discussed with the brethren at the GC if they thought injustice was done before running to the courts. This only shows something about them. (Maybe they did discuss with the GC about their intentions if they could not settle their issue, who knows).

Bob Pickle: The thing is, you canâ€™t just go by what a lawsuit says. There are reasons why so many people think that â€œhonest lawyerâ€ is an oxymoron.Take a look at 18 U.S.C. Â§ 2511 and see if you can find where it says that Graham or Blackmer or Jackson did anything illegal, as the lawsuit claims. In particular note Â¶ 2(d) where it says:Did Lenny Darnell record the conversation for a criminal or tortious purpose? Thus far everyone has said that Lenny didnâ€™t know he had recorded the conversation, and even Â¶ 97 of the lawsuit says that Blackmer was the first person to discover that the conversation had been recorded.Perhaps you could also help me with CA Penal Code Â§ 632. I can find where it says that you canâ€™t record a conversation without the consent of all parties, which could put Lenny in the hot seat. But I canâ€™t find in that statute where it says that you canâ€™t use or disclose what is thus recorded.Can anyone else find it?

I believe you’re right, Bob. I have read the CA penal code on recordings, and it says “intentional.” Lenny Darnell says he accidentally recorded it.

If so, his recording wouldn’t be illegal, would it? Also, it states “communicating” the information is illegal. But if the recording wasn’t illegal, how could the communicating of it be?

Bill Sorensen: This is the nature of socialism when it wants to subject every power or influence and bring it under the control of the government. All in the name of defending the individual. When in fact, it is for the purpose of total subjection of all powers.

Your views of our government are extreme. You come across as paranoid and spellbound by conspiracy theories.

The more time I spend here the more disappointed I am with the extreme views of those who post. I thought this was supposed to be about creation and evolution, yet people delve into all sorts of nonsense about medicine causing cancer, political correctness, government conspiracies, and outright lies about the beliefs of others (like the jerk who called me a theistic evolutionist for no reason whatsoever).

This is ridiculous. LSU was well within their rights according to the contracts of these “fine gentlemen.” And to presume otherwise when they signed the contract to uphold the church standards and values of the church. There was so much of the taped situation that stands in stark contrast with their contracts and for it to make it’s way to the NAD – when LSU is already treading on thin ice with the church at large – is even more damaging.

In my opinion, this law suit is just one more evidence of our stubborn, strong-willed arrogance. God cannot possible endorse this endeavor. Nor will He wink at our arrogance much longer.

Prayer is the only thing that can truly settle this issue and work toward the salvation of all involved.

Look people, it’s okay to fire professors and I think they should be fired if they were teaching against the church or breaking the rules of employment (which the filing brings to question). If you’re going to fire them though, you just have to do it properly and abide by the university’s policies and the rules of the land. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

I don’t want to be misunderstand. I don’t object to the firings if they were justified (I don’t know what was on the recordings). I just object to the way they were fired (breaking the law or not) and the way the situation was handled. As a church we can do better. Much better. We should pray for our leaders.

Why does it not surprise me that men who call themselves Seventh-day Adventist Christians, but disregard our beliefs in the area of alcohol and creation/origins would also disregard the CLEAR biblical mandate not to sue other Christians. By their works shall we know them. The deeper we get into this, the better we see the sides that are dividing. Brothers and sisters, the shaking is happening and things are moving fast. It is time to turn off the TV and get our lives prepared for His soon coming.

And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. (Romans 13:11, 12 NKJV)

If anyone, to include a church, is breaking a clear moral law, such as a situation in which children are being molested by church representatives yet the church isn’t doing anything about it, it is perfectly right for those in the know to invite civil authorities to step in and address the problem.

Is the particular situation at LSU in such a category? I’m not sure? I really don’t know all of the relevant details and I don’t think anyone commenting so far in this forum does either. It is best to wait and hold judgement to see how things play out a bit further to see if any additional information comes to light about how things were or were not handled in a moral and/or legal fashion by the church and by LSU…

Greg July 30, 2011 at 8:42 am Bill Sorensen and Faith take the extreme position that Catholic priests have the right to molest children and to be shielded from the law because the church is not subject to law. They believe that a church can also pay unfairly because of an employeeâ€™s gender.”

Greg, you obviously have no discernment what so ever. There is a vast difference between the two scenarios you have referenced.

People are subject to civil law if and when the civil law does not oppose God’s law. Even the Catholic church does not and would not condone what you claim would be justifiable by your own convoluted reasoning in the two examples.

Apparently, you fail to see there are many types of government that make up society.

Family law, city law, county law, state law, federal law, church law, and of course, for a Christian, God’s law. Ultimately, individual self government is God purpose for the human soul.

Yet, all these types of government must work together for society to function in a viable way. Our founding fathers in America could rightly see that seperation of church and state was imperative as a part of human freedom and accountability.

This does not mean a Christian is not subject to civil law. It does mean, civil law has no authority over religion.

But since all these types of government exist and function, it is inevitable there will be some conflict and overlapping in administration.

As an example, the civil government understands it has limited authority over a family government. So if mom and dad decide that Junior must go to bed by nine o’clock, Junior can not run to the civil government for redress of his disagreement.

Any rational judge would simply say, “Sorry son, that is a family matter and I have no authority to decide in this situation.”

On the other hand, we are aware that if you try to kill your children, the civil law will step in and take a hand in what would be hopefully, an abnormal situation.

So, there is some over lapping in administration.

But for you to claim the civil government has a right to decide and determine women’s rights in a church is so off the wall, I wonder if you have any idea of what the issues are really about.

Mainly because belonging to a church is a free will decision made on the part of the joiner. If you don’t think it is fair, or don’t like it, get out. Don’t run to the civil government and demand some action to secure your “rights”. And if you don’t see the difference (and apparently many like yourself don’t) there is no answer that would suit your misguided reasoning.

The Press Enterprise takes a liberal slant on the entire situation – and includes this very telling statement in reference to WASC

In the letter to La Sierra, the association expressed “deep concerns” about the “forced resignations” because Graham is also president of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

It is facinating that non-SDA entities are shocked and dismayed that the SDA church might actually be owning and operating their own institutions.

I wonder how many SDA constituents of LSU would be equally shocked and dimayed to learn that the SDA church has setup a board managed structure whereby the SDA church is enabled to own and operate its own universities and colleges?

Is it even possible that WASC could not have known that all of our colleges and universities are setup this way in North America?

The “wrong” action of the board chair in this case was not to fire anyone. Rather it was to confront the 4 men with the option of simply letting nature take its course – allowing the tape to be heard by all members of the board – such that the board would then be asked to take whatever action seemed best — or else to have the 4 resign to save themselves the embarassment of having the board hear what they actually said.

The four could easily have chosen to simply let things remain – let nature take its course – let the board hear the evidence and decide in a formal vote on the action to be taken.

The four apparently decided that Graham was giving them a “better way out” than having the board hear the evidence firsthand and letting nature take its course.

Charles: Its a lawsuit, not a judgement. Surely we all knew it was coming â€“ especially when we read that the professors were seeking legal counsel.
I did not see a $ number on damages sought but expect it to be in the $ millions â€“ enough that if fully awarded would sink LSU.

Interesting that the wording in the text claims that it somehow damages LSU not to have these three characters hanging around the LSU campus in their old jobs… but the “remedy” proposed in the legal action is to file suit against LSU and seek damages?

I thought Bradley at one time made a comment about the recording not being a matter of conspiracy – but a blunder on the part of 1 of the four.

Additional note from Dr. Bradley to me to further explain the note above after I asked him if I could post this:

If you were to post it I don’t think a lot would be lost since I have distributed it fairly widely on campus.

My only concern is that many read “secret recording” as diabolical whereas this was an accidental recording and distribution by one of the conversants. Thus it was more “Three Stooges” than “James Bond”.

I have casually followed educate truth for some while now and after some comments were made about Southern, my alma mater, and some very bizarre comments about medicine, by Faith, I decided to share my thoughts. After doing so I was immediately attacked by Bob Ryan and declared to be a theistic evolutionist (which I am not remotely close to) and clueness. And then I see these “our Church can do whatever it wants to employees without regard to the law” comments from Faith and Bill Sorensen, so I responded to them. And now I’m told that I’m probably not an Adventist.

This website is a joke. I used to have some respect for it and I appreciated the light it shed on La Sierra and theistic evolution in general, but the supporters represent extreme views withing Adventism that are downright disgusting. I’m going to make you all happy and just go away. This has been a big waste of my time.

Have I not seen name-calling and categorizing judgments passed — coming from several sources? Back in Jesus’ day the terms were ‘Raca’ and ‘Thou fool.’ Would not a humble, quiet statement of personal thoughts be more fitting of Christians of either side? Are we All close-minded and reacting under the wrong spirit? It seems responses given in love for all, quiet humility, nevertheless frankly, would contribute to genuine discussion than an all-out verbal fight. What is the purpose of this discussion, anyway? What are we trying to solve?

Bob Pickle: Looks like the recording these guys want kept a secret will eventually be made a part of the public court record. Not a great way to keep it all hush hush, eh?

That is interesting. They wanted to distribute the recording of what was on the first part of the tape – to family and friends. Then family and friends (possibly not hearing the last part of the tape) also wanted to distribute that same tape.

At what point is the “yes we want people to hear this tape” agenda so applicable to the first part of the tape – supposed to bind everyone who gets the tape to “not hearing” the second part?

Additional note from Dr. Bradley to me to further explain the note above after I asked him if I could post this:

Bradley said:
If you were to post it I don’t think a lot would be lost since I have distributed it fairly widely on campus.

My only concern is that many read “secret recording” as diabolical whereas this was an accidental recording and distribution by one of the conversants. Thus it was more “Three Stooges” than “James Bond”.

Bob Pickle: Perhaps you could also help me with CA Penal Code Â§ 632. I can find where it says that you canâ€™t record a conversation without the consent of all parties, which could put Lenny in the hot seat. But I canâ€™t find in that statute where it says that you canâ€™t use or disclose what is thus recorded.
Can anyone else find it?

More specifically – can you find the case where the one recording the conversation AND distributing the recorded event – is NOT the one guilty – only those are guilty who listen to what was given to them?

It would be like saying that the one who makes the security camera recording (at the gas station next to the office) AND distributes it is NOT responsible for what is on the video — only those that watch the video GIVEN to them are responsible for violating the rights of whoever was holding the meeting recorded by the security camera?

It’s sad that these guys were allowed to do continue teaching and represent the Adventist church after all this was highlighted for more than a year ago. They were allowed to mold children into evolutionists and put them at risk of losing eternal life, yet the GC, Pacific Conference, SCC, and LSU did nothing. These guys are laughing at our belief in the Creator God, and Ricardo Graham does nothing. But as soon as a recording comes out slamming Ricardo Grahams name, heads roll. We need more men who take offense to God’s name being slandered rather than selfish political people like Ricardo Graham. All Ted Wilson, Ricardo Graham, Larry C, and our pastors have to do is make a statement to their congregations saying, “LSU no longer teaches Adventist theology. Please do not send your children there.” The CCC hasn’t been any better either.

Michael: Itâ€™s sad that these guys were allowed to do continue teaching and represent the Adventist church after all this was highlighted for more than a year ago. They were allowed to mold children into evolutionists and put them at risk of losing eternal life, yet the GC, Pacific Conference, SCC, and LSU did nothing. These guys are laughing at our belief in the Creator God, and Ricardo Graham does nothing. But as soon as a recording comes out slamming Ricardo Grahams name, heads roll. We need more men who take offense to Godâ€™s name being slandered rather than selfish political people like Ricardo Graham. All Ted Wilson, Ricardo Graham, Larry C, and our pastors have to do is make a statement to their congregations saying, â€œLSU no longer teaches Adventist theology. Please do not send your children there.â€ The CCC hasnâ€™t been any better either.

Michael, You seem to be correct about why heads began to roll after some people were insulted. While our SDA beliefs were attacked, everyone seemed to do nothing.

But when some people were personally insulted (please listen to the tape to hear what I mean) then something had to be done.

Don’t misunderstand me though, what was said on the tape was certainly enough to remove these men. But God had to actually step in to get something done.

Javier G.: Holly Pham wrote â€œBut God had to actually step in to get something done.â€Letâ€™s get something straight. Elder Graham is not God.

I was referring to the accidental recording of the party. I believe, as I have stated before, that God intervened in this matter by having the conversation “accidentally” recorded, not reviewed or listened to, and then sent to others to hear. Nobody including Lenny Darnell bothered to check it.

If someone would have stated that such a scenario would lead to this matter being placed before us, and the whole SDA church they would have been laughed at.

You may say it was just coincidence but many I have spoken to agree that divine providence intervened. Certainly He used President Graham, who has been virtually absent as far as doing anything until the recording was released.

God just had President Graham be part of the insults on the tape, along with President Jackson, Larry Blackmer, and several others including members of the La Sierra board of directors. Listen to the tape yourself.

When the bible truth was being insulted, those in charge did virtually nothing.When the insults became personal, action began. God works through very mysterious and wonderful ways!

I’m not about to listen to the recordings. I had the opportunity but decided it was completely unethical to do so. The recordings are of a private conversation that was inadvertently made without the intent of others listening. At Spectrum a while back several SDA lawyers were discussing the recordings when a former SDA pitched by saying he had the opportunity to listen and refused to because it was highly inappropriate, and asked his partners if they would, and they said no. It’s sad that non-SDA’s have higher ethical standards than SDA’s.

At Spectrum there is a healthy description and discussion of events at Banff where the GRI and various SDA scientists are presently meeting to discuss how origins should be taught at our universities. Some have suggested this website (Educate Truth) would be a good place for such a discussion but obviously it isn’t going to happen here. The Banff meetings have real scientists in the trenches who understand better than posters here the problems and subtleties associated with teaching origins. So far as I can tell no one who contributes to this website including Sean Pitman is at these meetings in large part because essentially no one here has any knowledge of substance to contribute.

Educate Truth and its fan club does little but stir the pot and whine that things don’t happen when in reality much has been going on where the rubber meets the road. If you want a realistic perspective on the issues, you’re at the wrong website.

Even though Kaatz, Beach, and Bradley have asked you to? They filed a lawsuit, and lawsuits are generally public affairs. Thus, it sounds to me as if these three want anyone interested to listen to them.

Now perhaps they want you to wait until after discovery is completed. Or perhaps they hope to settle before then so that everything can be super secret and hush hush.

But really, if they wanted to ensure that the recordings don’t get listened to by more and more people, they should never have sued.

Clearly you are a perfect fit for the big-left-tent. So what is your interest in this open tent? Why not stick with the big-left?

There are 4 basic positions that have been posted so far â€“

1. Believe evolutionism is true â€“ no matter what the Bible says to the contrary or the observations in science telling you that birds do not come from reptiles. Exercise no critical thinking when it comes to by-faith-alone acceptance of evolutionism. Seek to find a way to bend and wrench either the interpretation of the Bible or the acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God â€“ so that it does not matter to you any more.

2. Believe that creation is true â€“ but that it is not in line with actual science. So tell our young people that we believe in nonsense (as really being the Word of God)â€” early and often. That way those who decide in favor of nonsense will remain faithful when the day comes that they find out that the Bible does not agree with reality of â€œEvolutionismâ€. This gives evolutionist what they want â€“ and it gives this particular brand of Christian what they want. Everyone gets along just fine.

3. Believe that Creation is true and that observations in nature support I.D. etc â€“ but claim that this is not that important when compared to the higher goal of always getting along no matter what the level of differences.

4. Believe that Creation is true as God stated it. Notice that observations in nature are in harmony with the I.D. principle of Romans 1. Realize and proclaim the full Christiantiy-destroying implication of evolutionism (even in cases where that is described in 3SG 90-94.). Stand for truth â€“ be counted â€“ though the heavens fall.

The first two are clearly â€œsurrender-firstâ€ options.

The third one is simply a head-in-sand approach not unlike those who choose to cover their eyes to make the problems go away.

In the first 2 (if not 3) models you often have the claim that it is â€œmean spiritedâ€ to address apostasy in the camp. To each his own â€“ and everyone gets along.
Only the fourth group above â€“ have a real solution.

â€¦.what makes you think that Spectrum would even allow all those who post here â€“ to comment over at Spectrum? Wouldnâ€™t that ruin their â€œbig left tentâ€ image?
surely they would be more inclinded to censor access to their board in that case.â€

And of course our latest “big Left tent” proponent to post on EducateTruth has affirmed that “censor first” form of liberalism.

They even tried to keep me from reading their forum materials and dialogues.

Of course, it is public information and I can read all I want to.

They hate anyone who points out their unfitness to have any influence at the GC sessions.

Of course, they can post over here and I personally have no problem with that. .

Here is an example of a post that will get an entire thread shut down over at the supposedly tolerant left – but in fact just “big left” tent.

I will certainly join with all those who condemn such murders, crimes against mankind committed by Protestants and Catholics.

…

As I stated in my first response to this topic – I deplore and condemn ALL of those crimes against humanity whether they were done by Catholics or by Protestants.

…

in response to our repeated statements that those crimes against humanity commited by protestants against Cathoics AS WELL AS the crimes against humanity commited by the Catholic church century after century after century in their Lateran IV program to “exterminate heretics” are all lamented and condemned by us Jim has “yet” to step up to that plate with the moral courage to “do likewise”.

So now we must ask – what is the “higher” goal for a big-left lib tent like Spectrum that would shut down a thread because I am calling for tolerance on all sides?

Javier G.: The â€œbig talk little substanceâ€ folks in the â€œlittle right tentâ€ have nothing of substance to contribute at Spectrumâ€“which is why you got yourself kicked out there.

Javier, Although you accuse ET of being “little” we seem to have the support of the vast majority of worldwide adventists, not Spectrum or AT. Minorities usually claim to need a “critical mass” to influence policies of the majority, but Spectrum and AT see their masses getting smaller as a percentage of our worldwide church.

Look at the history of groups like Spectrum, AT, and Kinship. Decades of harrassing our church and they still can’t get enough of our members to support them in order to influence policies to any significant extent.

Kinship even had to have their speakers remain anonymous at their recent meeting last week in the Los Angeles area. They also had to sneek into the GC meeting in Toronto under a false name. That’s how much influence they have in our church, despite being around for over three decades.

Holly Pham: Spectrum and AT see their masses getting smaller as a percentage of our worldwide church.

Compare the numbers of “likes” and “dislikes” between ET and Spectrum. Spectrum has close to 10-fold the number of readers (and content as well), many of whom contribute substantially to discussion. Bob, of course, will only highlight the very worst.

Obviously ET is a “little right tent” in large part because the same few people post the same repetitious mundane items again and again. Like 3SG 90-91, “reptiles to birds happy fiction”, “all they do is hate us”, “your faith is blind and useless” and “oh well free will being what it is”. It’s comical.

Javier G.: Compare the numbers of â€œlikesâ€ and â€œdislikesâ€ between ET and Spectrum. Spectrum has close to 10-fold the number of readers (and content as well), many of whom contribute substantially to discussion. Bob, of course, will only highlight the very worst.Obviously ET is a â€œlittle right tentâ€ in large part because the same few people post the same repetitious mundane items again and again. Like 3SG 90-91, â€œreptiles to birds happy fictionâ€, â€œall they do is hate usâ€, â€œyour faith is blind and uselessâ€ and â€œoh well free will being what it isâ€. Itâ€™s comical.

You neglected to address my point that the bible-believing conservatives have far more support than the leftsided liberals and progressives in our SDA church.

How did you determine the number of supporters of Spectrum versus ET? And how did you determine the number of supporters of each website? Please explain your statistical analysis. Or did you just guess?

Bob Pickle: Even though Kaatz, Beach, and Bradley have asked you to? They filed a lawsuit, and lawsuits are generally public affairs. Thus, it sounds to me as if these three want anyone interested to listen to them.Now perhaps they want you to wait until after discovery is completed. Or perhaps they hope to settle before then so that everything can be super secret and hush hush.But really, if they wanted to ensure that the recordings donâ€™t get listened to by more and more people, they should never have sued.

Are we going to post the recording so all can hear what these men said. It will be very enlightening because so many said nothing of any concern was on them. According to California law, the recording was not illegal.

I think most will be very concerned and even shocked at what these men said specifically about President Wisbey, President Graham, President Jackson, Larry Blackmer, several members of the La Sierra board, and even some other SDA schools.

Holly Pham: You neglected to address my point that the bible-believing conservatives have far more support than the leftsided liberals and progressives in our SDA church.
How did you determine the number of supporters of Spectrum versus ET? And how did you determine the number of supporters of each website? Please explain your statistical analysis. Or did you just guess?

It’s Bible, spelled with a capital letter, and I don’t know where stats exist on numbers that call themselves conservatives (like you and others here), middle of the road (like me) or liberals (like some at Spectrum) within our church.

For comparing websites however the numbers are easy. Just look at the numbers next to the thumbs up/down (Educate Truth) and vote up/down (Spectrum). It’s elementary, my dear Holly.

Javier G.: Itâ€™s Bible, spelled with a capital letter, and I donâ€™t know where stats exist on numbers that call themselves conservatives (like you and others here), middle of the road (like me) or liberals (like some at Spectrum) within our church. For comparing websites however the numbers are easy. Just look at the numbers next to the thumbs up/down (Educate Truth) and vote up/down (Spectrum). Itâ€™s elementary, my dear Holly.

My dear Javier, It’s not so elementary. I asked you where you had information on how many people actually support Spectrum’s ideas versus those ideas on ET. You didn’t answer my question. Can you?

“Obviously ET is a â€œlittle right tentâ€ in large part because the same few people post the same repetitious mundane items again and again.”

Wow! Surely you jest? Year after year Spectrum and A-today post the sameo-sameo day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year.

Some admit they don’t believe the bible. Some don’t believe the bible, but won’t admit it. Some so convolute the bible it has no viable meaning.

But in the end, all hate EGW and her teaching and work endlessly to undermine her ministry and mission. And it is true, that at times, they can point out how influencial people in the church do the same thing. Thus, they give each other massive doses of affirmation and acceptance based on one singular unifying idea. Namely, we hate EGW.

We could easily list at least 20 people who go on and on and on attacking the church and supporting wild ideas that no sane spiritual Christian would support.

Such as, homosexuality and gay marriage. Evolution in its various phases and meanings. And many conservative Christians in other denominations abhor the satanic music and the celebration movement that endorses the women’s lib movement that has come into the SDA church in the last few decades.

But this is the basic spirituality endorsed by many at Spectrum and A-today.

And it is a travesty that our official church would allow these ministries to have an influence at the GC sessions. They are endorsed by our leaders because what you refuse to oppose, you accept and endorse.

Javier G.: Obviously ET is a â€œlittle right tentâ€ in large part because the same few people post

While that is good quality whining – but you missed the point entirely.

1. I have not “contributed” to the ad hominem feeding frenzies that take place over at the big left tent from time to time. And that is a point “by contrast” with many of our lib friends over at the big-left-tent. So feel free to complain about my lack of contribution in that respect all you wish.

2. In the example I gave above – about the call to not exterminate or torment people be they Protestant or Catholic – the big-left-tenters decided to shut the entire thread down for such a statement. Now that is very very unnusual for that tent – because they have let some pretty awful threads run – and still are open – by comparison. But you take this as “nothing to be noticed”.

WOW!!

3. The reason Spectrum gets the big-left-tent award is that IT chooses to censor, shut down posters to create the result that they get.

By their own administrative and ad hominem practices they craft the result.

Again you suggest that libs should not be “noticed” when they do things that are not flattering to the liberal self-image.

“As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel’s message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position and join the ranks of the opposition. By uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit, they have come to view matters in nearly the same light; and when the test is brought, they are prepared to choose the easy, popular side. Men of talent and pleasing address, who once rejoiced in the truth, employ their powers to deceive and mislead souls. They become the most bitter enemies of their former brethren. When Sabbathkeepers are brought before the courts to answer for their faith, these apostates are the most efficient agents of Satan to misrepresent and accuse them, and by false reports and insinuations to stir up the rulers against them. {GC 608.2}
In this time of persecution the faith of the Lord’s servants will be tried. They have faithfully given the warning, looking to God and to His word alone. God’s Spirit, moving upon their hearts, has constrained them to speak. Stimulated
609
with holy zeal, and with the divine impulse strong upon them, they entered upon the performance of their duties without coldly calculating the consequences of speaking to the people the word which the Lord had given them. They have not consulted their temporal interests, nor sought to preserve their reputation or their lives. Yet when the storm of opposition and reproach bursts upon them, some, overwhelmed with consternation, will be ready to exclaim: “Had we foreseen the consequences of our words, we would have held our peace.” They are hedged in with difficulties. Satan assails them with fierce temptations. The work which they have undertaken seems far beyond their ability to accomplish. They are threatened with destruction. The enthusiasm which animated them is gone; yet they cannot turn back. Then, feeling their utter helplessness, they flee to the Mighty One for strength. They remember that the words which they have spoken were not theirs, but His who bade them give the warning. God put the truth into their hearts, and they could not forbear to proclaim it.” {GC 608.3}

I can’t speak for everyone else, but I have considered this quotation by EGW many times and wondered at what point I should just “get in, sit down, shut up and hang on?”

Obviously, we are not really aware of the intense evil of the forces involved to overthrow the SDA message and the faith of those who endeavor to maintain it.

We naturally assume, and rightly so, that most are simply being deceived by negative forces and when properly educated will surely take a stand for the truth.

For the most part, this is not true. While there are some who will yet see the errors being presented and repent, most will simply opt for the easy out that this false gospel is presenting in much of Adventism today.

And those who advocate it will in the end find an excuse to lie, cheat, mis-represent and do all in their power to secure the condemnation of those who hold fast the word of God.

This is the really hard part just as it was for Jesus. Honest misunderstanding is one thing, but deliberate mis-representation will make the cross far more difficult to bear.

We can see why in the trial of Jesus, He simply refused to speak or justify Himself or His actions. He knew their decision was made, and no amount of evidence against their decision would have any weight in changing their minds.

Bill, I am appalled. I for one have utmost respect for Mrs. White and do everything I can to defend her. I wish you would read her with an open mind, and note what she says about Jesus attitude toward sinners, including the sexually impure, and those who worship pagan gods.

PS. Who did Jesus say that he came to save? Do you have your doctrine right? Are you conservative? Do you have the truth? Do you know right from wrong? Then, I am sorry, Jesus didn’t come to save you.

In this quote, notice how the church members are apostatizing, they are taking on the spirit of the world. Note in the rest of the paragraph what spirit that is, it is the spirit of accusation and persecution. I ask you, who on this web site has had the most gentle spirit, and who has been the subject of hatred and persecution?

“They have not consulted their temporal interests, nor sought to preserve their reputation or their lives.” – Now look, between Bradly and the Church board, who is it that spoke their convictions without consulting their temporal interest ( i.e.their job security) and who was it that sought to preserve their reputation (i.e. doctrinal purity)? How do you think Mrs. White would have responded to the actions the church has taken in this case? Do you really think she would be pleased? (Hint: how did she respond when the church persecuted Jones and Wagner?)

@Bob Pickle:
>>Bob Pickle: Looks like the recording these guys want kept a secret will eventually be made a part of the public court record. Not a great way to keep it all hush hush, eh?<<
How are they able to keep it a secret? I thought it was already out there in the public for all to hear, isn't it?

Ron: In this quote, notice how the church members are apostatizing, they are taking on the spirit of the world. Note in the rest of the paragraph what spirit that is, it is the spirit of accusation and persecution. I ask you, who on this web site has had the most gentle spirit, and who has been the subject of hatred

I agree that some of our lib friends have used pretty strong words and outright ad hominem in their responses.

John Kannenberg: @Bob Pickle:>>Bob Pickle: Looks like the recording these guys want kept a secret will eventually be made a part of the public court record. Not a great way to keep it all hush hush, eh?<<How are they able to keep it a secret? I thought it was already out there in the public for all to hear, isn’t it?

I’ve listened to it. And I believe thousands of others have too. Why are we continuing to pretend it is some kind of secret document? Shouldn’t the church members hear what the matter is all about and decide for themselves whether these men deserve to fired or kept at La Sierra?

How do you think Mrs. White would have responded to the actions the church has taken in this case? Do you really think she would be pleased? (Hint: how did she respond when the church persecuted Jones and Wagner?)

I believe Ellen White would be in favor of removing those who endorse both evolution and gay marriage. Why would she want to keep these people inside our church to continue to promote these ideas?

So you think EGW was condecending to those who advocated false teaching and were corrupting the church?

She and James White were close friends with Dr. Kellogg. She never let her regard for him sway her judgment in exposing his false teaching. And the same applies to Canright.

So she said….

” A Time To Protest–When there are men in the church who love riches more than righteousness, and who stand ready to take advantage of their fellow-men by unjust dealings, shall we make no protest? And when men standing in the position of leaders and teachers work under the power of spiritualistic ideas and sophistries, shall we keep silent, for fear of injuring their influence, while souls are being beguiled? Satan will use every advantage that he can obtain to cause souls to become clouded and perplexed in regard to the work of the church, in regard to the word of God, and in regard to the words of warning which He has given through the testimonies of His Spirit, to guard His little flock from the subtleties of the enemy.”–Manuscript 72, 1904, p. 6. {ChL 62.1}

EGW was a woman doing a man’s job. And under the circumstances, she did a great job in light of the situations she had to deal with.

She was no “sissy” when it came to her duty to expose and oppose error. I admire her greatly because of the difficulty she had to encounter, partly because she was a woman, and partly because of her poor education. In the end, God qualified her to do the work she did, because men refused to accept His call.

It is almost as if God said, “I’ll show you, I can accomplish my goal with the weakest of the weak”, because she was willing to be used inspite of the problems she would obviously encounter.

And if by God’s grace I should be allowed into heaven, I hope to find Ms White and tell her how much I appreciated her testimonies and that I understand, at least on some level, what she must have gone through in her service for Jesus.

None the less, I am very content and have no reason to complain because of my Christian commitment. As she said to Fitch and Stockman when they asked her in heaven about her trials, “Praise the Lord, heaven is cheap enough.”

All I am saying is this, we have little or no comprehension of what she suffered and I am spiritually upset by those liberal spirits who attack her continually and work earnestly to undermine her ministry and mission.

I want to make a comment about the law and how many in the SDA church view it. The law is often damned with faint praise while the so-called gospel is praised and advocated over and above the law.

Kind of like a person who is sitting across the room from someone and they don’t see them very clearly. Later a mutual friend brings them together and in the introduction they desire to compliment the other person, so they say,

“Hey, you are not as ugly as I thought you were sitting across the room from you.”

Many profess to believe the bible with a simular confession, such as, “Hey, its a good book.” Or, “I like the stories of the bible.” or perhaps, “Every one should have one in their library.”

And in this way, they actually undermine the real intensity and dynamic of the bible with “faint praise” that makes the bible far less in importance than it really is.

In these discussions concerning evolution vs. creation, we see these undermining applications by the evolutionists. Some are not willing to admit they don’t really believe the bible, so they obscure its true and real dynamic with a confession that is far less than adequate in light of the bibles importance and clarity in what it affirms and what it denies.

Jesus asks this question, “When the Son of man cometh, will He find faith on the earth?”

And the answer is, “Not unless the Holy Spirit keeps the true dynamic of the bible alive and well in the Christian community.”

I mean this in the truest way, “Unless we fight like hell to preserve God’s truth, Satan will prevail. Hell is unrelenting in attacking God and His kingdom. And we need the same intensity to oppose Satan as he uses to oppose God’s kingdom.”

Javier G.: Compare the numbers of â€œlikesâ€ and â€œdislikesâ€ between ET and Spectrum. Spectrum has close to 10-fold the number of readers (and content as well), many of whom contribute substantially to discussion. Bob, of course, will only highlight the very worst.Obviously ET is a â€œlittle right tentâ€ in large part because the same few people post the same repetitious mundane items again and again. Like 3SG 90-91, â€œreptiles to birds happy fictionâ€, â€œall they do is hate usâ€, â€œyour faith is blind and uselessâ€ and â€œoh well free will being what it isâ€. Itâ€™s comical.

I took your advice and looked at the voting over on Spectrum. Not very impressive. Most posts have a dozen or so votes, up and down. A few have a few dozen. A very few have more. Some have only a few votes, either way.

Doesn’t look like Spectrum is very well followed, especially for an organization in business for several decades.

Also, many of the posts are from people who oppose Spectrum and its ideas. A few dozen core individuals contribute most of the posts, and some are those that oppose the Spectrum ideology.

Excellent posts, both of you. I believe 100% in the SOP and I am so very grateful the Lord blessed us with His servant Ellen White. I, too, can hardly wait to meet her in heaven. I think one of the most wonderful scenes up there will be when Ellen meets Jesus. She has seen Him so many times in vision, that I am sure she will feel she is meeting her old Friend once again.

I can’t wait to see Jesus as well. He has taken such good care of me and my family. We owe so much to Him, I hope to spend all eternity praising Him, thanking Him and serving Him.

I feel so sorry for anyone who sells out their salvation so cheaply as the liberals have done. What fearful regrets they will have, but it will be too late. We only have this life to prepare–and as Charles says, we need to work hard at it now. The time is so short.

This controversy at LSU is one of Satan’s ways to keep us stirred up rather than doing the work we are suppposed to be doing for the lost souls in the world. The GC has right to get this done and over with, so we can get at the work assigned to each one of us…that of warning the world.

>> John Kannenberg: @Bob Pickle:>>Bob Pickle: Looks like the recording these guys want kept a secret will eventually be made a part of the public court record. Not a great way to keep it all hush hush, eh?<<How are they able to keep it a secret? I thought it was already out there in the public for all to hear, isnâ€™t it?

Iâ€™ve listened to it. And I believe thousands of others have too. Why are we continuing to pretend it is some kind of secret document? Shouldnâ€™t the church members hear what the matter is all about and decide for themselves whether these men deserve to fired or kept at La Sierra?
<<

“It s natural for the wrongdoer to hold the messengers of God responsible for the calamities that come as the sure result of a departure from the way of righteousness. Those who place themselves in Satan’s power are unable to see things as God sees them. When the mirror of truth is held up before them, they become indignant at the thought of receiving reproof. Blinded by sin, they refuse to repent, they feel that God’s servants have turned against them and are worthy of severe censure.

Today there is a need of the voice of stern rebuke; for grievous sins have separated the people from God. Infidelity is fast becoming fashionable. ‘We will not have this man to reign over us,’ is the language of thousands.’Luke 3:7. The smooth sermons so often preached make no lasting impression, the trumpet does not give a certain sound. Men are not cut to the heart by the plain, sharp truths of God’s Word.

So men(and women?) who should be standing as faithful guardians of God’s Law have argued, till policy has taken the place of faithfulness, and sin is allowed to go unreproved. When will the voice of faithful rebuke be heard once more in the church? … True love seeks first the honor of God and the salvation of souls. …When souls are in peril, God’s ministers will not consider self, but will speak the word given them to speak, refusing to palliate evil.” Prophets and Kings, pgs 139-142.

Adventist kid: Nope, because its an academic matter, and church members have nothing to do with it.

The legal aspects may be settled in the courts, not in academia. But the opinion of the world church will be a major factor in these men’s legacies. I hope the tape is released so everyone can hear what kind of men La Sierra has hired to lead them.

I believe it will be an embarrassment to La Sierra and to the La Sierra Board, who hired them.

The embarrassment ought to lie with Ted Wilson, those that run this site, and those that use The Word of God to disparage others. The truth of this statement is evident by the Un-Christian manner in which they impose their agendas onto to others. Anyone recall Wilson’s treatment of those working with Adventist Relief?

While I too get caught up in “the blame game,” we must think of the LSU students. If LSU is not an accredited university (which may happen do to Wilson, Blackmer, Jackson, Graham, “The 3 Sisters,” and others), then the students are the ones who suffer – as their degrees will be likened to those that “graduate” from some for-profit online “college.”

We need a well educated congregation for our church to not only survive, but moreover, THRIVE.

To be sure, Fundamental Belief 6, as well as each and every Fundamental Belief, MUST be taught in our institutions; however, if we are to have our beliefs represented in the scientific community then Science Majors MUST have knowledge of The THEORY of Evolution (even the secular world considers Evolution a theory – not absolute fact).

Wilson’s dog-and-pony show, or more accurate, egotistical-power show OUGHT NOT damage the future of our church. Those board members who have succumbed to the Un-Christian behavior of “Power-Grabbers” like Wilson, including Graham and “The 3 Sisters,” ought to show they are Christian through DEEDS. They must halt their concerted effort to defame LSU and those who are educating our church. For, if we treat our fellow Adventists this way, how can we effectively spread our message and grow our church – as our own beliefs are not being followed by the church leaders.

“I hope the tape is released . . . I believe it will be an embarrassment to La Sierra and to the La Sierra Board, who hired them.”

I’m pretty sure this is exactly the approach Jesus would have you take . . . yikes, you show such a loving, redemptive spirit towards fellow fallen humans and church institutions.

(By the way, each of the three individuals has served LSU for a minimum of 30 years or more . . . no one serving on the LSU Board had anything to do with their hiring; at least try to get your facts straight.)

Unlike you (and a few others), Shane has realized the very real potential legal jeopardy involved in publishing any aspect of the recording, in either written or audio form. Why do you think he quickly pulled the information from his website once he received professional legal advice?

For yet one more time, the contents of the recording are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, even if you inappropriately tried to make it your business by listening because of your own prurient interests. The situation is being handled by those who actually should be dealing with it, even if some of the actions taken so far have been less than ideal.

Holly Pham: Also, many of the posts are from people who oppose Spectrum and its ideas. A few dozen core individuals contribute most of the posts, and some are those that oppose the Spectrum ideology.
It looks like the â€œBig Left Tentâ€ is only really a tiny pup tent!

There is a lot of truth to that statement.

If you want a more high volume site where few if any are banned – try ClubAdventist.

Javier G.: Compare the numbers of â€œlikesâ€ and â€œdislikesâ€ between ET and Spectrum. Spectrum has close to 10-fold the number of readers

Some libs have a very hard time deciding which way to slam conservatives. On the one hand they would “like to claim” that EducateTruth is responsible for every bad day that LSU has. But the very next sentence they want to claim that there are only 4 people here.

hmm so 4 people that nobody listens to – cause LSU to have problem?

The confused storytelling of our lib friends does not always tend toward common sense.

BobRyan: Some libs have a very hard time deciding which way to slam conservatives. On the one hand they would â€œlike to claimâ€ that EducateTruth is responsible for every bad day that LSU has. But the very next sentence they want to claim that there are only 4 people here.hmm so 4 people that nobody listens to â€“ cause LSU to have problem?The confused storytelling of our lib friends does not always tend toward common sense.in Christ,Bob

Your are so correct, Bob. We over here are so powerful that the GC listens to our every word and obeys. But, we don’t have anyone listening here or posting here. It does sound rather ridiculous!

Jim: Holly said:â€œI hope the tape is released . . . I believe it will be an embarrassment to La Sierra and to the La Sierra Board, who hired them.â€Iâ€™m pretty sure this is exactly the approach Jesus would have you take . . . yikes, you show such a loving, redemptive spirit towards fellow fallen humans and church institutions. (By the way, each of the three individuals has served LSU for a minimum of 30 years or more . . . no one serving on the LSU Board had anything to do with their hiring; at least try to get your facts straight.)Unlike you (and a few others), Shane has realized the very real potential legal jeopardy involved in publishing any aspect of the recording, in either written or audio form. Why do you think he quickly pulled the information from his website once he received professional legal advice?For yet one more time, the contents of the recording are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, even if you inappropriately tried to make it your business by listening because of your own prurient interests. The situation is being handled by those who actually should be dealing with it, even if some of the actions taken so far have been less than ideal.

I believe the information on the tape should be the business of all churchmembers who have an interest in how La Sierra is being run. Why don’t you want the information heard? It’s because it is extremely embarrassing to all who have supported the liberals at La Sierra.

If you don’t want to listen, that’s fine with me. Just let the rest of us gain the facts and truth about what this situation is all about.

Holly, I kind of thought you might come back with something like that. Thank goodness that Shane is running this board, and not you, or others who apparently continue to think like you.

You think “the information should be the business of all churchmembers [sic] who have an interest in how La Sierra is being run”? Really?

In what possible way would it glorify God, or advance His message that we’re supposed to be taking to the rest of the world, to unnecessarily drag the recording out for everyone to hear (let alone listen to again, for people like you who seemed to think it was their business in the first place to eavesdrop on a private conversation)?

Holly, I’m pretty sure you know by now that La Sierra is being run by those who have already forced the resignation of those four individuals. In other words, IT’S ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH, and presumably in a way in which you and others should approve.

Your obsessive and ungracious demands in trying to make the recording public once again can only be because of unholy and prurient interests, and certainly not because it will serve any useful purpose for God or the SDA Church.

Professors and administrators who each have at least 30 years of service to the university WITH NO PRIOR DISCIPLINARY RECORDS have now each LOST THEIR JOBS over this one incident.

I’ll shout it one more time for you, Holly, disciplinary actions HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN against all four individuals on the private recording — and they have all LOST THEIR JOBS.

In other words, the university — and the church — have already, however imperfectly, dealt with the situation in the harshest manner possible. What more would you like to have done against these four people — drag their names and reputations publicly through the mud one more time? For what possible constructive or redemptive purpose?

Aren’t the forced resignations the type of action you and others have demanded of church and university leaders? Rejoice — and then move on; you and like-minded confederates have just won the battle, right??

By the way, as I pointed out earlier, there is the small matter of real and significant legal liability that rightly concerns Shane. He is well aware that screen shots were made of his site during the time he did have the recording publicly posted — and they are currently in the hands of attorneys; and he knows he and Sean still face the possibility, if not probability, of expensive legal action for publishing a private conversation.

And yes, Holly, I am aware you and perhaps others have scanned through some legal code, and have made your own neophyte determination that there are no legal problems with the recording.

Thank goodness Shane is not taking his legal advice from rank amateurs, for the situation is much more complicated legally than you obviously seem to think. I believe it’s safe to say that Shane will rightly NOT allow any written or audio portion of the private recording to be posted on this site, regardless of what you or others may clamor for him to do.

Holly, “. . . the facts and truth about what this situation is all about” have ALREADY been dealt with, and by people in actual positions of authority — and that certainly doesn’t include you or most of the rest of us.

Why don’t you simply accept reality, rejoice in it, AND MOVE ON to something more productive — like maybe something that God may want each of us to be doing with our lives to actually help spread His message of love and redemption to a fallen world . . .